Ubuntu’s cloud storage service hits Mac in beta, with 5GB free

Canonical's cloud now spans Windows, iOS, Android, Ubuntu, and Mac.

Canonical's Ubuntu One cloud storage service hit Mac OS X in a beta on Thursday, bringing Ubuntu's Dropbox competitor to all widely used platforms. The service already had applications for Windows, iOS, Android, and of course, Ubuntu.

"As this is a beta we are still working hard fixing bugs to make the Mac client even slicker," Canonical said in an announcement. "Please be patient whilst we iron out the kinks over the coming weeks." Users can report bugs at the Ubuntu One help site.

Just like Dropbox, SkyDrive, or Google Drive, Ubuntu One adds a folder to your file system for sharing files across devices. It also provides a management console from which you can add folders to sync, manage connected devices, share links, and configure settings on syncing, notifications, and limits on upload and download speed:

Beyond the desktop and mobile clients, there's a browser-based tool to access files from any device. I tested out syncing a file from a Mac to an Ubuntu PC this morning, and it works—quickly. In addition to 5GB storage, the free tier of the service provides file sync across all platforms, sharing folders and files, and mobile access. Canonical is in the money-makingbusiness, though, so there are subscription options and integration with the Ubuntu One Music Store in a manner similar to that used by Amazon's Cloud Drive.

For $2.99 a month or $29.99 a year, Ubuntu One users can add 20GB for a total of 25GB storage, and can continue to add 20GB blocks for the same price. For $3.99 a month or $39.99 a year, users get the additional 20GB plus music streaming on mobile, with a cache for offline listening. You can start off with six months of free music streaming and 20GB of storage by buying one track from Ubuntu One.

Ubuntu One hit the 1 million user mark last year, and offers a developer program for building applications on top of the service.

Now we need a service/app/program/whatever that takes all these "free" 5gig plans across different companies such as Canonical, Google, Dropbox and Amazon and combine them into one big virtual drive that's around 20 or so gigs...for free!

Just imagine the terms of service you'll probably be violating! I know that has some of you, that wants to "stick it to the Man", salivating.

This is great news. I've been using UbuntuOne since launch and it's a great way to sync important files between Windows, Linux and Android. Once this new release is out of beta, I'll be able to do just about anything from any device, including the MacBook.

Now we need a service/app/program/whatever that takes all these "free" 5gig plans across different companies such as Canonical, Google, Dropbox and Amazon and combine them into one big virtual drive that's around 20 or so gigs...for free!

Just imagine the terms of service you'll probably be violating! I know that has some of you, that wants to "stick it to the Man", salivating.

Of course, the app looks nothing like any OS in existence. And they use their own font. Idiots.

It uses the ubuntu font and looks the same as Ubuntu One on Ubuntu. It's a cloud managing app for Ubuntu...

The primary goal is more cloud storage for Ubuntu users rather than everyone, they just made Windows,OS X apps to make it easier to sync between your Ubuntu installs and other computers. It doesn't really look that bad and at least its not as forceful about it's own look as say Steam.

Of course, the app looks nothing like any OS in existence. And they use their own font. Idiots.

I agree with your sentiment. Applications should use system themes and design as much as possible and this app doesn't look at home on Ubuntu, Mac OS X, or Windows. The colours are all wrong, the rounded borders inside the app are funny, the font is wrong.

considering iCloud is $40 for 20GB and $20 for 10GB, I can't see a reason why anyone would choose the paid options for UbuntuOne for Mac over that. Especially since iCloud is pretty much integrated into almost every Apple software and probably the likeliest to be supported by third party developers... It's only $10 a year for basically getting superior integration. If it were more like $20 or more, I could see a point. As it is, it'll probably be an also-ran, thanks to that and the looks.

Now we need a service/app/program/whatever that takes all these "free" 5gig plans across different companies such as Canonical, Google, Dropbox and Amazon and combine them into one big virtual drive that's around 20 or so gigs...for free!

Just imagine the terms of service you'll probably be violating! I know that has some of you, that wants to "stick it to the Man", salivating.

Ha, I was thinking the same thing, except I think you could find quite a few free services out there and get close to 100GB. You stripe the data so that if one of them goes down or out of business you still have your data. I'd love that!

Now we need a service/app/program/whatever that takes all these "free" 5gig plans across different companies such as Canonical, Google, Dropbox and Amazon and combine them into one big virtual drive that's around 20 or so gigs...for free!

Just imagine the terms of service you'll probably be violating! I know that has some of you, that wants to "stick it to the Man", salivating.

This screenshot looks identical to the Windows and Linux versions of UbuntuOne.

That's the problem. A program written for OS X shouldn't look like a Windows program. I hate how companies put their brand above platform consistency and user experience.

The counter to that is that to use the same application on different OS's you have to refamiliarize yourself all over again. Which one is more hostile to the user's experience?

Which approach to take depends on the specific application and a number of assumptions (or data from usability tests) about the users.

Not to mention that the actual window decorations remain OS specific. The only cross-platform apps I have issue with are ones that eschew the operating system's titlebars, buttons, etc for their own (I'm looking at you, Steam!)

Well I have to give them credit for trying to support all platforms. That's way more then Apple really tries to do. But then again if your a Apple product owner. Apple just figures your all Apple . I just got a Apple email stating that my larger iCloud storage limit had been extended because I was a loyal MobileMe customer before that. Wow, I felt so important-NOT.

Not to mention that the actual window decorations remain OS specific. The only cross-platform apps I have issue with are ones that eschew the operating system's titlebars, buttons, etc for their own (I'm looking at you, Steam!)

This ++.I can tolerate non-native looking window content, but it really annoys me is when they mess with the window decorations. In my opinion, what's in the client area of the window belongs to the app, but the window decorations belong to the OS. If a game (running in windowed mode) used its own fonts and UI styles, I doubt anyone would complain about it not looking native to the platform. Nobody would expect Diablo 3 to use the system fonts and styles.

When I'm developing widget-based interfaces, I generally prefer using cross-platform widget toolsets that can automatically mimic the look of the native platform (I'm a big fan of Qt), but in my opinion, an app is separate from the OS. The OS is there to support the app and get out of the way. The app is not an extension or add-on to the OS. I generally prefer a relatively loose integration between the app and OS because I use multiple platforms and prefer to use the same apps on all of them, and have those apps work consistently across platforms, even if the platforms work a bit differently.

The counter to that is that to use the same application on different OS's you have to refamiliarize yourself all over again. Which one is more hostile to the user's experience?

I disagree. The UI could be made to look much the same (layout, etc.) but with proper native widgets, fonts, and so forth.

Exactly. Why is everybody always getting muddled between false dichotomies while overlooking the bleedingly obvious best practice that has always come out on top with users, for decades? 'Editor's Pick' my ass.

I never liked Ubuntu One and Ubuntu Nusic, because quite honestly they appear to be "me too" products.

In general, Canonical looks like Path-E-Tech from Dilbert. I can't help but ask myself "how do they make any money?" Their products are either me-too (Ubuntu One, Ubuntu Music), or rushjobs pushed out of the door to meet some arbitary 6-month deadline, and either suffer from quality problems like borked upgrades even on LTS releases (Ubuntu) or lack of features and usability issues (Unity).

I quit Linux years ago because of Ubuntu, and I am not going back unless I manage to find a distro that doesn't have Ubuntu as upstream and doesn't break upgrades.

The only UI I need are: Decoration on the folder in the Finder (same as Dropbox); and a menu bar icon, same as Dropbox. Does it do that? Whether or not there's an app or just a website or how the app looks, I don't really care.

Hmmm... looking at the download page - no menu bar integration. No Folder decorations. Why? Why bother with this app if they don't have the simplest of user interfaces first?

The counter to that is that to use the same application on different OS's you have to refamiliarize yourself all over again. Which one is more hostile to the user's experience?

I disagree. The UI could be made to look much the same (layout, etc.) but with proper native widgets, fonts, and so forth.

Exactly. Why is everybody always getting muddled between false dichotomies while overlooking the bleedingly obvious best practice that has always come out on top with users, for decades? 'Editor's Pick' my ass.

I qualified the statement quoted here in my original post. It depends on the application, and the users. That "bleedingly obvious best practice" claim will have to be backed up. Source? As a simple anecdote I get disoriented when switching between skype on windows and mac. Could they have been designed so that the "stuff" was in a similar place but just looked different? Maybe. Someone at Skype determined that for the majority of users, this approach was best -- I'm just not that user and that decision is not bleedingly obvious to me in any way.

Do you expect web pages to start skinning themselves to the OS/Browser you're using? It's nearly the same thing -- especially when you consider how many applications are moving to be strictly browser based as well as browsers continuing to evolve by removing "chrome" to get out of the way of the content or application.